I can understand how others may not care but it felt so out of place and silly in the world Burton established (again, it looks great visually though). Just because it's not meant to be logical doesn't give it a free pass. If Iron Man started break dancing in the middle of the NYC Battle in The Avengers, it wouldn't be logical and it would seem out of place and it likely wouldn't just get a free pass because it's not supposed to be logical.

But, as I said, it is a gorgeous shot no matter what your opinion on the context is. I'd love to see the mechanism go off during a party though.

And that's the problem; people who don't understand the actual meaning behind scenes like that, falsely assume/interpret the scene, and end up with inaccurate criticisms.

For that scene in particular, it's all about how - after the death of the Joker - Bruce has withdrawn even farther into his obsessions, depression and isolation. That Bruce is rendered listless and downright impotent when he's not Batman. Thusly, if we went with squaremaster's assertion that he should be doing something other than sitting around in a darkened room, the undertones of Bruce's depression and isolation wouldn't be as prevelent.

Now sure, you could probably illustrate the same thing without the overly overt mirrors, but at the same time, they could very well be a visual representstion of how Bruce has so thoroughly surrounded himself in his work as Batman. The overt nature of the mirrors could very well mean that Bruce doesn't even really care if anyone does find out if he's Batman, as that's all he really is at that point in the film, anyway. Additionally, the fact thst thry are so obvious yet Bruce's secret is still kept coild be an illustration of just how isolated Bruce is; that no one outside of Alfred or him have even been close to Wayne Manor since the events of B89.

Either way, the real message of that scene is that Bruce is alone, depressed and rudderless as a human being when Batman isn't in the picture. Any critique surrounding it should really be more about whether that's a proper direction to go with the characterization of Bruce.

I can understand the intentions of the scene and that's great. If you can throw out common sense for the scene, good for you. However, I can't do that (of course, suspension of disbelief is required for movies and they just have to fit within the world, imo). I just feel that it's so illogical and ridiculous. I understand Burton's intentions (if they are what you say they are) and that's great. However, I still find it ridiculous.

Now, your explanation that no one has been near Wayne Manor makes a little more sense. Though I still think that someone in the press would have noticed.

Yes, but you're still stuck on the close minded viewpoint that storytelling needs to be consistently logical. Where there are HUGE schools of thought and theory that espouse differently.

Expressionism itself is defined as;*Its typical trait is to present the world solely from a subjective perspective, distorting it radically for emotional effect in order to evoke moods or ideas. Expressionist artists sought to express meaning*or emotional experience rather than physical reality."

And that's exactly the type of approach that that scene - and all of Burton's Batman films - take. That's the point. That's the purpose. To slight it because it prescribes to that type of art form is like finding fault in someone believing in a different school of religion than you do; there's no objective positive or negative about it. Rather, it's merely a different way of creating art.

Yes, but you're still stuck on the close minded viewpoint that storytelling needs to be consistently logical. Where there are HUGE schools of thought and theory that espouse differently.

Expressionism itself is defined as;*Its typical trait is to present the world solely from a subjective perspective, distorting it radically for emotional effect in order to evoke moods or ideas. Expressionist artists sought to express meaning*or emotional experience rather than physical reality."

And that's exactly the type of approach that that scene - and all of Burton's Batman films - take. That's the point. That's the purpose. To slight it because it prescribes to that type of art form is like finding fault in someone believing in a different school of religion than you do; there's no objective positive or negative about it. Rather, it's merely a different way of creating art.

Yes, I do feel storytelling needs to be consistent and logical. It needs to make sense. If you enjoy the film, I won't take that away from you. But, for me, I can't stand Burton's style of film making. I feel that he goes too far with it. Things do have to make logical sense, if they don't, it's usually a problem. In this case, I feel it's a problem. For me, it takes me completely out of it. You can't just completely ignore the logic in the universe of the film and call it art because it means something. Visuals are important in making a film (obviously) but they shouldn't take priority over something making sense, imo.

But, I feel we're going nowhere with this discussion, so it may be best if we just end it.

Not only is Batman Begins the greatest superhero origin film ever made, it's also the primary reason TDK was as successful as it was.

Even if everything else had remained intact with The Dark Knight (casting, plot, critical praise, LEdger's demise, etc.), has THAT film been the official reboot/introduction to the Nolanverse, it wouldn't have been as successful at the box office due to people not knowing what type of atmosphere and characters to expect beforehand.

__________________"We'll never see Day-Lewis and Kubrick, we'll never see Kurosawa and Eastwood, but we have officially seen Bale and Nolan, a cinematic dream pairing come to life!"

Why would Bruce Wayne having reflector mirrors outside of his home be "illogical" in it's own world? How can it be an issue for someone anyway?

The reflections are the only way you could get a logical explanation for the signal to illuminate on Bruce in his study. From a filmmaking stand point, having him simply notice it in the sky wouldn't work nearly as well. That image of him "coming to life" and seeing the signal on the bookshelves in Wayne Manor is striking and iconic, that's the point.

Symbolism > Logic

EDIT:

Just saw Anno's post, hit the nail right on the head. The bridge emblem in TDKR from a logical stand point makes less sense than Batman Returns. He poured gasoline on the very top of the bridge all the way down the side of it, then got a flare to give to Gordon just to show everyone his awesome logo?

But a brooding millionaire/billionaire on the outskirts of the city having reflective mirrors on his mansion is "illogical".

It's not about the "logic" in either film, it's about sending a message. In Returns, the message is showing a beacon that gives Wayne a purpose. In Rises it's about Batman's return and showing the city and his enemies the ever lasting symbol.

Who cares if it "makes sense". Who wants to get bogged down with that noise?

Why would Bruce Wayne having reflector mirrors outside of his home be "illogical" in it's own world? How can it be an issue for someone anyway?

The reflections are the only way you could get a logical explanation for the signal to illuminate on Bruce in his study. From a filmmaking stand point, having him simply notice it in the sky wouldn't work nearly as well. That image of him "coming to life" and seeing the signal on the bookshelves in Wayne Manor is striking and iconic, that's the point.

Symbolism > Logic

EDIT:

Just saw Anno's post, hit the nail right on the head. The bridge emblem in TDKR from a logical stand point makes less sense than Batman Returns. He poured gasoline on the very top of the bridge all the way down the side of it, then got a flare to give to Gordon just to show everyone his awesome logo?

But a brooding millionaire/billionaire on the outskirts of the city having reflective mirrors on his mansion is "illogical".

It's not about the "logic" in either film, it's about sending a message. In Returns, the message is showing a beacon that gives Wayne a purpose. In Rises it's about Batman's return and showing the city and his enemies the ever lasting symbol.

Who cares if it "makes sense". Who wants to get bogged down with that noise?

I still prefer Iron man though. And perhaps Man of Steel. We shall see.

__________________
Alan Moore on comics:

They've lost a lot of their original innocence, and they can't get that back. And, they're stuck, it seems, in this kind of depressive ghetto of grimness and psychosis. I'm not too proud of being the author of that regrettable trend.

That you just named a movie that hasn't even been released yet is pretty telling.

I said perhaps and we shall see. It tells nothing, considering I am a Goyer and Snyder sceptic.

__________________
Alan Moore on comics:

They've lost a lot of their original innocence, and they can't get that back. And, they're stuck, it seems, in this kind of depressive ghetto of grimness and psychosis. I'm not too proud of being the author of that regrettable trend.